releases: https://web.archive.org/web/20140926001643/http://www.vitter.senate.gov/newsroom/press/vitter-epas-incomplete-pesticides-analysis-is-killing-ruston-peach-farm
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20140926001643/http://www.vitter.senate.gov/newsroom/press/vitter-epas-incomplete-pesticides-analysis-is-killing-ruston-peach-farm | Vitter: EPAs Incomplete Pesticides Analysis is Killing Ruston Peach Farm | 2014-09-22 | 2014 | 2014-09 | Republican | House | LA | David Vitter | V000127 | web.archive.org | legacy | Vitter: EPA’s Incomplete Pesticides Analysis is Killing Ruston Peach Farm EPA phases out certain pesticides without providing cost-efficient, effective alternatives. EPA’s ineptitude has likely killed a Louisiana peach farm. Monday, September 22, 2014 (Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, today sent a letter to Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regarding the growing negative agricultural and economic impacts due to the Agency’s inappropriately calculated risks and benefits for certain pesticides. “Just in the last decade, one of Louisiana’s iconic peach farms has steadily watched the family orchard die thanks to EPA phasing out methyl bromide in pesticides without providing a cost-effective or equally efficient alternative,” said Vitter. “Peaches are a huge part of North Louisiana’s economy and culture, and the EPA needs to provide answers immediately about their failings.” In Vitter’s letter, he highlights a family peach farm in Lincoln Parish, Louisiana that has been devastated as the EPA has continued to wind down the use of a critical pesticide. The orchard has shrunk by 80% over the last decade. Despite efforts to find an appropriate replacement for methyl bromide, thus far attempts have failed and both the orchard and livelihood of many Louisianians are in jeopardy. In today’s letter, Vitter asks EPA to explain the process behind which they grant farmers and businesses critical use exemptions to use pesticides such as methyl bromide for which there are often no commercially or economically viable alternatives. Text of today’s letter is below. September 22, 2014 The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator McCarthy: It has recently been brought to my attention that significant concerns exist regarding EPA’s permissible use of methyl bromide under the Critical Use Exemption (CUE) program. I understand that pursuant to the Montreal Protocol there has been a long-term scheduled phase-out of ozone depleting substances including methyl bromide. While I do not intend to argue the merits of ozone restoration, I do have concerns that the lack of appropriately calculating risks and benefits for CUE allocations is having growing negative agricultural and economic impacts in a number of regions around the country. As the primary sources of methyl bromide are oceans and biomass burning, along with the consideration that methyl bromide has a very short life in the atmosphere, there does appear to be a legitimate question as to whether additional phase-outs of the remaining limited uses will result in any significant material benefits towards ozone restoration. Moreover, my understanding of the natural sinks that absorb methyl bromide indicates that scientific understanding is not complete. The clear impacts felt regionally, particularly to the domestic agriculture industry, serve as important notice to the challenges of replacing certain products of critical importance and may provide an example of why decision-making should evolve along with scientific understanding. The challenges of applying for and acquiring CUEs for methyl bromide has had a profound impact on a number of industries, peach farming in Louisiana is unfortunately a good example. In Lincoln Parish, one of Louisiana’s iconic farms has steadily watched the family orchard die off as the EPA has continued to wind down the use of methyl bromide. The orchard has shrunk by 80% over the last decade and threatens the annual Peach Festival, which draws thousands of visitors each year. Despite feverish efforts to find an appropriate replacement for methyl bromide, thus far attempts have failed and both the orchard and the festival, along with the livelihood of many Louisianians are in jeopardy. My understanding is that the primary objection to the process being used by EPA to evaluate requests for CUEs is that the government does not perform an objective analysis of the need for the product – including taking into account often serious economic impacts.. Essentially, the level of information that the EPA is requiring an applicant to furnish in support of their CUE overwhelms the capabilities of most regular Americans including farmers. Further, when an application is submitted, the general sense seems to be that EPA can be counted on to assert any number of excuses including that it is not sufficient or complete, or the EPA of course forms different conclusions than the researchers regarding the research that is conducted. Finally, it appears EPA has suggested alternatives that often cost multiple times more than methyl bromide and frequently those replacements either lack technical feasibility or have potential to be even more harmful to the environment. Perhaps the Montreal Protocol’s stricture in permissible use of methyl bromide can serve as an example of the need to provide member countries the flexibility to better calculate impacts on domestic businesses and families when entering into international agreements, and to provide appropriate off ramps when necessity observes. In the interim to a long-term fix to the growing challenges with the methyl bromide phase-out, I would appreciate responses to the following questions: 1. How many CUE applications has EPA denied and accepted over the last five years? 2. What replacement products for methyl bromide have been developed, how do the costs and availability of those replacements compare to methyl bromide, and how has EPA worked to get the information on those products in the hands of farmers? 3. How has EPA’s science on methyl bromide evolved over the last ten years? 4. Has EPA done anything to simplify the application process over the last five years? 5. If not cost-benefit analysis, or risk-benefit analysis, what analysis does EPA utilize to determine the need for a CUE? I appreciate your response to these questions as I work to better understand the impacts of the Montreal Protocol and the implementation of the phase-out program. Thank you, David Vitter Ranking Member Committee on Environment and Public Works | 1 | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z |